Decentralisation of education management is usually premised on the assumption that communities would demonstrate interest and actively participate in the affairs of their schools (Olowu & Wunsch 1990; Putnam 1993; World Bank 1994). Secondly, that through such participation, communities would develop a sense of ownership for their schools and provide voluntary services to support them. However, not much is often said about the cost of such participation. I was interested in exploring the extent to which this was played out in the school communities I studied, and the factors which affected this sense of ownership. The data showed quite strongly that ownership and participation came with a cost that determined how people were willing to volunteer their services to support school improvement.
Talking to the head teacher and staff of both CBS and Kuku schools, it emerged that community participation for example, through the provision of labour on school projects such as the classroom block constructed at CBS and a KVIP toilet block at Kuku was on the decline. The head teacher of CBS community (located near a commercial area (Bigtown)) observed that:
In the past matters affecting the school received spontaneous responses from community members. The primary school block was built with all hands on deck but when constructing the new JSS classroom block few
community members came to offer communal labour. (head teacher [CBS]: 24/11/08).
The head teacher at the Kuku School presented a similar story when he said: Many community members these days prefer going to their farms or go fishing to doing voluntary work. (head teacher [Kuku]: 24/10/08)
It appeared from further probing of this issue that community members who were willing to volunteer their services expected rewards, whereas it was assumed they would offer services for “free”. Some SMC members expected to be remunerated for their work on the committee. The main argument was that the opportunity cost of working on school programmes meant a substantial economic sacrifice, since according to some of them, they could have spent some of that time on their farms, fishing or trading as these views suggest:
… Why not? I know it is our duty as members of the SMC to be visiting the school to check on their condition and progress. But if we spend our time in the affairs of the school, where do we get the money to pay school fees and even feed our families? (SMC member [Kuku]: 04/11/08).
Another SMC member from CBS who expressed similar sentiments indicated that: We have complained to the SMC chairman to change meeting days from week days to week-ends because during the week we attend to our businesses. That is why attendance to meetings is very poor, not that people are not interested in helping the school (SMC chairman [CBS]: 27/11/08).
There was also a suggestion that economic hardship was contributing to this lack of voluntary commitment to offer services for school development, especially community members‟ support of newly posted teachers. A community member in Kuku who was a retired educationalist pointed out that he had noticed a decline in offer of assistance to teachers who had taken up teaching posts in the community. As he pointed out:
It used to be a common feature for graduating teachers to scramble for postings to the rural areas. This drive was motivated by gifts of foodstuffs and vegetables. But these gifts have stopped coming these days. So as you can see, the rural areas are no longer attractive to new teachers. (community member [Kuku]: 19/11/08)
... The poverty that has descended on this village has made everybody stingy. (community member [Kuku]: 19/11/08).
According to the Kuku head teacher, literate people who were elected or appointed to represent their various constituencies withdrew when they realised that there was more demand on their time than they had anticipated. What was rather revealing about this problem was the solution that some offered to increase their levels of participation from the community. Basically, there was a feeling that if an allowance was paid for serving on school committees or visiting schools to inspect their progress, then more people would be willing to serve on them. The head teacher further indicated that:
Even community members of the SMC are now asking for allowances for working as SMC members and attending meetings and because no provision to pay such allowances has been made in our budget they don‟t attend meetings (head teacher [Kuku]: 24/10/08).
A community member‟s comment confirmed the head teacher‟s assertion:
If they don‟t pay us some allowances very soon they (school) will not get anyone to serve on any committee. I don‟t understand why when teachers do extra classes they are paid and when we spend our time on the school they don‟t want to give us anything (community member [Kuku]: 19/11/08).
Probing further, these views appeared to have gained some legitimacy in those who held them because of the introduction of capitation grants14 to schools. The view was that the government‟s willingness to absolve the burden of parents because of „prevailing economic hardships‟ by introducing the capitation grant should be extended to those who were also helping the school since all of them were in the same economic environments. That failing, they felt inclined to concentrate on their vocations. One SMC member from the CBS community argued:
If the government was ready to pay a capitation grant, it should also pay for services rendered by us. After all we all go to the same market (SMC member [CBS] : 27/11/08).
Quite clearly, the capitation grant policy appeared to have resulted in some unintentional consequences. Its introduction had created the impression that the government was going to cater for almost all services related to schools‟ development, which obviously is counter
14
to decentralisation philosophy. This had been interpreted by some to imply that there was little need for community members to make any contribution to school development, including support for school governance.
The assumption that communities will voluntarily engage with schools discounts the competition with other social and economic pressures. Where communities feel under stress from economic hardships this might dampen their interest in active engagement with schools. It raises the question about what is reasonable to expect from communities and especially of the wider education community.
However, parents with children in private schools spoke differently about their relationship with schools expressing more willingness to respond to requests to school improvement. Three of such parents (one in Kuku and two in CBS) who had enrolled their children in low-cost private schools were of the opinion that private providers offered value for money, hence their willingness to make sacrifices to assist when called upon by their schools.
In a private school the reason for sending our children to school is achieved. We spend money now and hope that our children will make progress academically. In the government‟s schools the teachers are not committed like the private school teachers (parent [Kuku]: 11/11/08).
Ownership and voluntary service are the hallmarks of community participation in education. However in poor rural communities this may come at a cost to residents who look to their service merely as a voluntary activity, but as an investment of their time. Clearly the introduction of the capitation grant had added to the distortion about participation as a voluntary service, with some thinking they should benefit from this grant.
This is a case of unintended consequences of policy and draws attention to the need to look at the wider implications of new policies before perhaps making adjustment or taking appropriate steps to limit any negative consequences. Clearly the evidence from the study shows that participation may be misconstrued or misapplied in the face of other policies, e.g. the capitation grant.